Thursday, 19 April 2012

The End of the Age of Entitlement: Hockey's speech (link to full transcript)


In April 2012 the Australian Federal Opposition’s Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey delivered a speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs in London titled The End of the Age of Entitlement.

In this speech Hockey stated;

Entitlement is a concept that corrodes the very heart of the process of free enterprise which drives our economy…
The social contract between government and its citizens needs to be urgently and significantly redefined. The reality is that we cannot have greater government services and more government involvement in our lives coupled with significantly lower taxation…..
You will remember it was Margaret Thatcher who interpreted community entitlements as the right for our children to “grow tall and some taller than others if they have the ability in them to do so”. This broader and timeless conservative definition of our end game lays down some foundations for the role of government. Equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome is my preferred model for contemporary society.…..
Defined benefit schemes need to be phased out worldwide, including in Australia, whether they are for public servants or private sector employees. All government-funded pensions and other such payments must be means tested so that people who do not need them do not get them.

The first we heard about the Coalition’s plan to review Commonwealth welfare payments/tax concessions/other forms of government assistance with a view to reducing and/or eliminating some of these is found in an ABC TV Lateline interview on 18 April 2012.

Hockey told Lateline that:

Well, with an ageing population and an entitlement system that has seen extraordinary largesse built up over the last 50 years, Western communities, Western societies are going to have to make some very hard and unpopular decisions to wind back the involvement of the state in people's lives……
we need to be ever-vigilant. We need to compare ourselves with our Asian neighbours where the entitlements programs of the state are far less than they are in Australia…
Australia's heading in one direction, that's a reduction of entitlements and it's empowerment of people.

The full transcript of Hockey’s IEA speech can be found here.

Despite Hockey past protestations otherwise, he appears to be following the Liberal Party’s tendency to take its policy straight from Margaret Thatcher’s old playbook and the more conservative elements of the U.S. Republican Party and its Tea Party adherents.

Margaret Thatcher in October 1987:

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

One Tea Party leader Phillip Dennis in CNN Opinion, April 2010:

Welfare and unemployment benefits must be drastically cut.

Here is a statement on one right-wing public policy think tank, The Heritage Foundation, made in August 2010:

If we really want to get our nation back on track, one of our top priorities must be to end the age of entitlements.

Ohio Republican Rep Jim Jordan told The Washington Times in April 2011:

Unless we start looking at this fractured system as one unit, exploding costs will bring the whole thing down.

Republican Rep. Paul Ryan said in The Huffington Post on 20 March 2012:

We don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people ... into complacency and dependence.

'Push to add drama' (video)

The NSW North Coast scores a pass mark when it comes to crimes involving firearms - but not so good with murder


New South Wales is a big place when you think about it – all 809,444 km2  or so of it. About 7.3 million people live within state borders, which is around 32% of the entire Australian population. Almost 8% of all Walers live on the Mid and Far North Coast.

The bad news………………
“The offence of ‘discharge firearm into premises’ rose by 41 per cent (from 71 incidents in 2010 to 100 incidents in 2011) in the two years to December 2011, according to the annual crime statistics report released today by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Around half of NSW recorded incidents of ‘discharge firearm into premises’ in 2011 were recorded in the three Sydney statistical subdivisions (SSDs) of Canterbury-Bankstown, Central Western Sydney and Fairfield-Liverpool.”
There were 410 robberies involving a firearm in NSW in 2011.
{BOSCAR Media Release on 17th April 2012 on NSW Recorded Crime Statistics 2011 and NSW Recorded Crime Statistics 2011}

The good news………………
None of those ‘drive by’ shootings happened on the NSW North Coast. Only 10 robberies (from Bellingen right up to the NSW-QLD border) involved someone carrying a firearm – or just 2% of all robberies with firearms.

Something to think about……….
NSW recorded 75 murders in 2011. Only 4 murders are listed for the NSW North Coast but these make up 5% of all the state’s murders last year.

Best Media Photo of the Week


And only Turn Left 2013 put it out into the blogosphere on 15th April 2012:

Image: Fairfax
Tony Abbott’s press conference, the same time Bob Brown
announced his retirement on Friday 13th April 2012

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

NSWLC Government Whip Phelps parades his ignorance


Ever since the Hon. Dr. Peter Phelps MLC came to the notice of the Twitterati I have been finding him a hitherto untapped source of amusement.

This is vintage Phelps in Hansard on 2nd June 2011:

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: This is now the fourth time Mr David Shoebridge has referred to draconian legislation. He would, or should, be aware that "draconian" is the adjectival form of "dragon". There are no dragons involved in this legislation, and there are no dragons involved in the industrial relations situation of New South Wales. There may well be an argument for dracona-centric global warming, but that is something we will leave for another time. I ask that Mr David Shoebridge cease and desist from bringing the good name of dragons into disrepute by describing this as draconian legislation. [my bolding]

Sounds fair doesn’t it? A doctor of philosophy in history giving 'helpfu'l linguistic advice to a fellow member of the Legislative Council.

However, all is not what it seems. The “adjectival form of dragon” is in fact “draconic” – using a lowercase d.

A quick use of his Blackberry would have displayed the fact that the adjective “Draconian” or “draconian” refers to of, like, or pertaining to Draco or his laws and alternatively harsh, rigorous, severe as any good dictionary will tell you.

Although English is a dynamic language constantly changing over time, it is yet to catch up to Mr. Phelps’ fanciful interpretation – except perhaps in the realm of science fiction.

The new Daily Examiner editor is young enough to be an Internet Bairn, so.....



……all of us NSW North Coast WW2-ers and Baby Boomers can look forward to stumbling across candid photos such as this one from circa 2006-2008.




Welcome to the Valley, Jenna!

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Abbott and Co out to emasculate the NSW Nationals?


All is not well between the Liberal-Nationals Coalition in the lead up to the next Australian federal election and strong language is the order of the day in this letter (originally published by The Australian) in reply from Nationals NSW President Christine Ferguson to Federal Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos on 5 March 2012.
 
Nationals NSW President Christine Ferguson's Letter To Federal Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos